It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

page: 15
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi




Ehh they pick and choose what they want to follow.

Clearly everyone in every walk of life is doing just this on every subject all the time.
That is called freedom. I reject and I decide to accept by my will alone. No one should be bother by this.

Amen, and the Why of thigns is so difficult to answer, and hence vulnerable to people picking and choosing a path in the wasteland of ideas. it's also so very profound. Science seeks the How, but its answers are limited in scope and only pertain to How.

IMHO, philosophy and religion and science and spiritualism are all intertwined, all seeking to find answers. Science cannot replace religion and neither can religion replace science, yet either can have an influence on the other. For example, if religion says the Earth emerged 6000 years ago and science says that's impossible then science has the upper hand. Similarly, if one believes we live in the Matrix and they worship Neo and this turns out to be true then they're privy to something science might never know, since the Matrix is coded to hide itself from most users.

And I think religiion can very easily fit onto a conspiracy forum. For isn't Satan the liar of liars? Does NOT Satan seek to blind us all? And how is THAT not a conspiracy? Satan is the conspirator,
edit on 13-10-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Before I even begin to touch this, I have to ask the obvious. (Since this is clearly a C&P job & not your own questions)

Did you even bother reading at the thread I linked to or not?

And to prove I'm not "afraid" to answer, I'll do so briefly with the first two:

God of war & peace. (Remember YOU chose the verses, not I)
Ex. 13 says at the top of the chapter that this is a SONG written by MOSES as a show of worship. IOW this is an attribute Moses gave to God, not one that God professed about himself.(And yes I know there are other verses that say God is about war, but you didn't post it & its not my job to support your position)


Gen 1 Beasts or Man? (A verse of the Godhead (Elohim) talking amongst itself about making man does NOT equal actually making man.

Context isn't your strong suit now is it?



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi



originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi

I guess actually you mean don't want them removed as they have in many cases been there a long time. I guess if we remove all the history we definitely need new money and many other things replaced.



How you extrapolated that from this I do not know.
So you cannot or will not come up with a good reason why religionists feel the need to adorn public land with their religious monuments.

Simple most of these arguments have been around removing such items that have been there a long long time, not in the placing of new ones.


So you are asking me to argue something I haven't endorsed instead of addressing what I have.

You have me confused removing religious items from public property you said. Is this not the same as saying it should all be removed?
You said on page 8...Again I will ask why did the ten commandments have to be there in the first place? As I said before with all the "tax free" land owned by religions in this country you would would think they could find some place to put their things.


OK if you want I can play at that. Why do you want to destroy all religions except yours is there not room enough for all.

Well I don't belong to any religion so I am the wrong person to ask, but in my opinion anything conducive to the good of the public is welcome. I have no problem with all inclusiveness if it is based on bring forth peace and good behavior in society, if it does the opposite then yes I have a problem with it on public property.

If you don't think that is a fair question then don't answer but I will ask that you address my position and not attribute other positions to me.


Could you clarify your position on religious items on public property again? I assumed posts such as this meant you wanted them gone.


religious monuments being forced upon public lands?

edit on 13-10-2014 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: schadenfreude

Thank you so much for proving my point with this.




(And yes I know there are other verses that say God is about war, but you didn't post it & its not my job to support your position)


As you have just admitted you know of the contradictions yet you ignore them for what suits you.

That was and is the point. Seems you forgot the context of the conversation. Thanks for playing.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So you ignore the rest of it then? Did you read the site, or are you just throwing feces around?

No points for addressing second question, ok.

YOU were the one quoting scripture, not I. If you can't quote the right one (and the context where it is mentioned) how is that MY FAULT?

Thanks for playing indeed.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi




Ehh they pick and choose what they want to follow.

Clearly everyone in every walk of life is doing just this on every subject all the time.
That is called freedom. I reject and I decide to accept by my will alone. No one should be bother by this.

Amen, and the Why of thigns is so difficult to answer and yet so profound. Science seeks the How, but its answers are limited in scope and only pertain to How.


Never thought of it that way, but I find that above quite elegantly spoken. Well done



if religion says the Earth emerged 6000 years ago and science says that's impossible then science has the upper hand.


Or simply not the right dictionary or the elemental counting skills needed. Here's a fun one. God creates everything in six similar periods of time called a day. The mantra is that one day for God is 1000 years for regular bleeders. Now, according to the Bible Adam was made on the sixth day and according to Genesis and royal Sumerian genealogies Adam was born around 6000 years ago. Now, this tells us not only that a day is something other than merely a 24hr period of various lighting conditions, but that God stayed on Earth when he did these things and Adam was created in the sixth of these cycles:

==> 6000 x 365 x 6000 = 13 140 000 000 years.

I'd say that is pretty close to what science says. Don't you? And it was written like that a few centuries BC. Quite amazing.
edit on 13-10-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Adam born



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee




Could you clarify your position on religious items on public property again? I assumed posts such as this meant you wanted them gone.


No problem. As I have already stated I am fine with the supreme court's rulings on religious monuments on historical buildings.

My question throughout the thread has been why do religionists feel the need to place religious monuments on public lands. It should be easy to recognize that question refers to ongoing attempts at tagging public lands.

I have asked that question several times but no one has answered.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Where they feel it is relevant and you do not.

Exactly...

The truth is ALWAYS relevant.

But at the same time, it's never welcome.

I believe this is the reason why:


“Jesus said I'm the truth, truth is not a teaching, truth is a person…” ~ Jan Sjoerd Pasterkamp

Let me say boldly that it is not the difficulty of discovering truth, but the unwillingness to obey it, that makes it so rare among men. Our Lord said, "I am the Truth." And again He said, "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." Truth, therefore, is not hard to find for the very reason that it is seeking us! So we learn that Truth is not a thing for which we must search, but a Person to whom we must hearken! ~ A.W. Tozer

The man who tells the truth is universally disliked by every person because every person has an agenda and is hiding behind a fantasy which the truth penetrates like an arrow and leaves him stripped naked before the whole universe, and he does not like that." ~ Milton William Cooper

The truth will always be the truth, despite our opinions.
The truth is still the truth even if it is not understood.
The truth is still the truth even if we are not able to accept it.
The truth is still the truth even if we choose to ignore or reject it.
The truth doesn't need the approval of the human ego in order to be truth.
The truth needs nothing to back it up.
The truth is self-sustaining.
The truth stands on its own.

What is the Absolute Truth




edit on 13-10-2014 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: grainofsand




The Bible in my opinion is never useful for mature debate outside of religious forums.


The bible is a collection of some of the worlds ancient texts, as such they have value anywhere.


They certainly do.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


Amen, and the Why of thigns is so difficult to answer, and hence vulnerable to people picking and choosing a path in the wasteland of ideas. it's also so very profound. Science seeks the How, but its answers are limited in scope and only pertain to How.


i assume you are referring to 'why'...implying that electrons make a conscious decision to orbit the nucleus. or that any other number of subatomic functions are motivated by any form of will. i hadnt gotten that memo, can you link me to it?



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




My question throughout the thread has been why do religionists feel the need to place religious monuments on public lands. It should be easy to recognize that question refers to ongoing attempts at tagging public lands.

I have asked that question several times but no one has answered


Thank you...I personally have not seen any court battles over new objects except a cross or set of them on a hill somewhere in the country. All the cases I have followed were about objects that were there for a long time and people wanted them removed..atheists I presume in most case.



It should be easy to recognize that question refers to ongoing attempts at tagging public lands.


As to this I must have missed a link or something showing this was only about current placements? So you have no problem with anything of religious nature remaining that has been there for X amount of years?
NM I see you answered this above



No problem. As I have already stated I am fine with the supreme court's rulings on religious monuments on historical buildings.

edit on 13-10-2014 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

So absolute is not truth, it is a state of nothingness, which is only true to itself.

Meaningless entirely, every part of it is using logic that is unable to see any farther than it is allowed too.

Of course it is funny watching people look for truth without actually realizing that they have been rendered unable to do so.

All of that, just renders itself back to a position towards God, and this is totally unprovable.

Time for us to take things a lot farther than that kindergarten stuff....which is a circle of a ...........



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

I figured out a long time go we know so very little about just about everything



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
A doomsday theory, just isn't a doomsday theory without Religions old pal Satan.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777
I certainly agree from a historical perspective, but as morality guidance much cherry-picking of verses is required.
You know, miss out the stoning of children, genocide, and other dark stories in the Bible:


1 Samuel 18:25 - Saul then said, "Thus you shall say to David, 'The king does not desire any dowry except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the king's enemies '" Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

...yeah, when we pick and choose it is an interesting book for sure, but in my opinion no more important in a non-religious ATS debate than the Hindu Vedas or Greek mythology.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Specimen




A doomsday theory, just isn't a doomsday theory without Religions old pal Satan.


hehe

exactly.

yet the bible teaches that the biggest conspiracy within Satan's plans is to trick the world into thinking he DOESN'T exist.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee




So you have no problem with anything of religious nature remaining that has been there for X amount of years?


Not exactly it is a bit more complicated than that.


The Supreme Court has allowed the inclusion of religious symbols in public displays so long as those symbols are part of a larger work that serves a secular purpose such as the architecture of the Supreme Court building which was designed by architects and sculptors, not lawyers and legal scholars. One can't read the architecture of the building as if it were intended as some sort of commentary on American law. Separationists have never challenged those depictions which proves that separationism does not have the effects claimed by accommodationists.

The 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court building would pass muster even under today's more stringent establishment clause. Moses and the 10 Commandments as depicted there are never given positions of exclusive prominence. It is when such monuments are given prominence over the center stage if you will that they skirt or break the establishment clause. Whenever that happens you can expect them to be challenged in court and I accept whatever the rulings may be.

To give you an idea here are some other cases with explanations why they could remain or had to go. atheism.about.com...
edit on 13-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Murgatroid

So absolute is not truth, it is a state of nothingness, which is only true to itself.


Just bumping in to defend Murgatroid here, not something I often do btw, Old Hermes Trismegistus would beg to differ, not just Jesus and Plato. Dealing with the truth is one of the most lethal things you can do. It's like sticking your head out of a train. It's all about timing really. And knowing your way around sarcasm and irony can literally save your life.


Meaningless entirely, every part of it is using logic that is unable to see any farther than it is allowed too.


Exqueeze me, but that's sodding nonsense, not all truth is self-evident. In fact, very little of what can be called Truth is is in any way self evident. Only a very few words in the dictionary are onomatopoetika, and yet, you will have to understand profound codes and cyphers called language in spoken and written form to get the full understanding of it.
edit on 13-10-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: syntax + sarcasm



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11




I have no idea why ATS allows this ..


Nothing Personal It's Strictly $$$ for AYTEE ..... S !!!!!!
edit on 13-10-2014 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: dianashay

Really, cause the masses seem to want Satan head on platter like it was duck season. In most cases of Abrahamic religions, I've learned Satans a little b*tch.




top topics



 
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join